Supreme Court Reopens Iskcon Property Dispute: Implications for Bengaluru Temple and Similar Trusts

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court of India reopened a property dispute between Iskcon Mumbai and Iskcon Bengaluru over the ownership of the iconic Hare Krishna Hill in Bengaluru. The land in question occupies 7 acres in the heart of Bengaluru, with a value that could run into hundreds of crores, according to real estate experts. Moneycontrol explains what this dispute means for the Bengaluru temple and how it could impact other religious trusts using similar structures.

The dispute between the two Iskcon entities dates back 25 years and initially began as a civil case in the Bengaluru district court. The core issue is whether Iskcon Bengaluru is an independent entity or falls under the larger Iskcon umbrella controlled by Iskcon Mumbai. Iskcon Mumbai maintains that it is the headquarters and that the Bengaluru temple should be owned by them. Conversely, Iskcon Bengaluru argues that it is an independent society registered in Karnataka and thus owns the temple.

The Supreme Court reopened the case on December 2 and has scheduled arguments from both sides to be heard on January 22, 2026. In May 2025, the Supreme Court had initially ruled in favor of Iskcon Bengaluru, upholding its independence over Iskcon Mumbai. The case has seen a seesaw movement over the years, with Iskcon Bengaluru winning at the trial court in 2009. However, Iskcon Mumbai challenged this order and won the case in the Karnataka High Court in 2011. Iskcon Bengaluru then appealed to the Supreme Court in 2011, leading to the May 2025 ruling.

The temple at the center of the dispute is located in Rajajinagar, at the heart of Bengaluru. The property value of the land could be in the hundreds of crores, say real estate experts. The case also has implications for the theological differences between the Bengaluru and Mumbai arms of Iskcon, particularly regarding the Ritvik system versus the Guru system.

The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Iskcon case will serve as a precedent in future trust dispute cases involving large charities and religious organizations. Some older not-for-profit trusts follow a decentralized model, where regional chapters form separate trusts and own properties such as temples and charitable institutions. A Supreme Court verdict in favor of Iskcon Mumbai would imply centralized ownership of assets, which could have far-reaching implications for similar organizations.

The outcome of this case will not only determine the ownership of the Bengaluru temple but also impact the structure and governance of religious trusts across India. The legal and theological implications of the dispute highlight the complexities involved in managing large religious organizations and the need for clear legal frameworks to address such issues.